HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DECIDES TO HOLD SPECIAL SESSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN PALESTINE AND OTHER OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES
The Human Rights Council this afternoon held the last meeting of its first session, adopting decisions and resolutions on, among others, the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the incitement to racial and religious hatred, and the promotion of tolerance. It also adopted two statements by the President on hostage-taking, and on the entry into force of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In addition, the Council adopted its framework for a programme of work of the Council for the next year.
The President of the Council, Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, said that following a request signed by 21 Member States of the 47 Member States of the Council to hold a Special Session on the situation on human rights in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, he was holding consultations with the Bureau and the Secretariat to see when it could be scheduled as soon as possible. In light of the fact that the four-week session of the Economic and Social Council was beginning on 3 July, they were even considering holding the Special Session during the lunch period. A decision would be announced by Monday, 3 July.
In a statement by the President on the entry into force of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Human Rights Council welcomed the entry into force, on 22 June 2006, of the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, following ratification by 20 States.
In a resolution on the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the Human Rights Council endorsed the
(more)
conclusions and recommendations contained in the report of the Working Group on its fourth session; and requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to select, in close consultations with the regional groups, five highly qualified experts to study the content and scope of the substantive gaps in the existing international instruments to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
In a statement by the President on hostage-taking, the Council reaffirmed that all acts of hostage-taking, wherever and by whomever committed, were a serious crime aimed at the destruction of human rights and were, under any circumstances, unjustifiable; strongly condemned all acts of hostage-taking anywhere in the world; and reaffirmed that hostage-taking calls for concerted efforts on the part of all States and the international community, acting in full compliance with international humanitarian law and international human rights standards, in order to bring such abhorrent practices to an end.
In a resolution on the draft framework for a programme of work of the Human Rights Council for the first year, the Human Rights Council adopted a framework for a programme of work of the Human Rights Council for the first year. The next session of the Council will be held from 18 September to 6 October.
In a resolution on the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, the Council requested the relevant Special Rapporteurs to report to the next session of the Council on the Israeli human rights violations in occupied Palestine; and decided to undertake substantive consideration of the human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories at the next session and to incorporate this issue in its following sessions.
In a resolution on incitement to racial and religious hatred and the promotion of tolerance, the Council on Human Rights decided to request the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance as well as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the next session on this phenomenon.
The Council also adopted its report to the General Assembly on the session.
In concluding remarks, the President said the Council had recently started to be built. A large number of high-level dignitaries had attended. This had opened many doors, although many more remained to be opened. The Council had sought to achieve inclusion and transparency at all times. Some innovations had been introduced, some of which would be repeated. A space for creativity had been found. The single objective of achieving the best possible results should be found. Spaces for participation had been opened up, and they should go beyond the opportunity to just express an opinion, but to go forward to participation so that the protection of human rights became a reality. Interactive dialogues had been held, allowing for important topics to be addressed. Particularly important decisions had been taken, including the first decisions on the International Convention on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearances, and the United Nations Statement on the Rights of Indigenous peoples. These reflected the capacity of the Council to improve the system of protection of human rights at the normative level, and this now needed to be expressed on the ground. Very ambitious targets and objectives had been set, and these had been met, thanks to the commitment of the delegations participating in the work.
Speaking this afternoon in general comments were the representatives of Argentina, Canada, Finland, and Tunisia.
Speaking as concerned countries were the representatives of Israel, Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon.
Speaking in explanations of the vote before the vote were Finland, Guatemala, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Speaking in explanations of the vote after the vote were Switzerland, Japan, and Uruguay.
Statement by President on Optional Protocol to Convention against Torture
In a statement by the President on the entry into force of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by consensus as orally amended the Human Rights Council, the President welcomes the entry into force, on 22 June 2006, of the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, following ratification by 20 States. The Human Rights Council reiterates General Assembly resolution A/60/251 which, inter alia, “calls upon States parties to give early consideration to signing and ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which provides further measures for use in the fight against and prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment.”
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina), in a general comment after the adoption of the Presidential statement on the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, said that Argentina was very pleased that the Council had just adopted the statement. Argentina, which had ratified the Optional Protocol, was currently working on a draft act, in harmony with the federal form of its Government, to prevent torture, in conformity with the standards set out in the Protocol. Argentina said that a National Committee against Torture would be set up as an independent body that would be a very useful tool against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and for the promotion of human rights.
Resolution on Working Group on Implementation of Durban Declaration
In a resolution (A/HRC/1/L.8) entitled “the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action”, adopted by consensus, the Human Rights Council endorses the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action on its fourth session; requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to select, in close consultations with the regional groups, five highly qualified experts to study the content and scope of the substantive gaps in the existing international instruments to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; the group of experts, in consultation with human rights treaty bodies, the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and other relevant mandate-holders, should produce a base document that contains concrete recommendations on the means or avenues to bridge these gaps, including but not limited to the drafting of a new Optional Protocol to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination or the adoption of new instruments such as conventions or declarations; requests the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to conduct a further study on possible measures to strengthen the implementation of the Convention through additional recommendations or the update of its monitoring procedures; decides also to extend the mandate of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action for a further period of three years; and decides further to remain seized of the issue of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance at its second session in September 2006.
PAUL MEYER (Canada), in a general statement, said that combating discrimination was a priority for Canada. Canada had been combating racism domestically and at the national level. The delegation of Canada believed that the fight against discrimination should be carried on through dialogue and cooperation. The international community already had enough instruments in its fight against that phenomenon. It was the view of Canada that there was no need for new instruments. However, Canada would join the consensus in adopting resolution L.8.
Statement by President on Hostage-Taking
In a statement by the President on Hostage-Taking, adopted by consensus, as orally amended, the Council reaffirms that all acts of hostage-taking, wherever and by whomever committed, are a serious crime aimed at the destruction of human rights and are, under any circumstances, unjustifiable; strongly condemns all acts of hostage-taking anywhere in the world, in particular the most recent acts of hostage-taking, including the murder of four diplomats of the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Baghdad, Iraq, as well as other cases of hostage-taking involving civilians in Iraq; and reaffirms that hostage-taking calls for concerted efforts on the part of all States and the international community, acting in full compliance with international humanitarian law and international human rights standards, in order to bring such abhorrent practices to an end.
Resolution on Programme of Work of the Council for the First Year
In a resolution (A/HRC/1/L.13), entitled draft framework for a programme of work of the Human Rights Council for the first year, adopted by consensus as orally amended, the Human Rights Council adopted a framework for a programme of work of the Human Rights Council for the first year, taking into account the transitional nature of that period. The next session of the Council will be held from 8 September to 6 October, and will consider reports of mechanisms and mandates; progress reports by the intersessional mechanisms on the universal periodic review and the review of mandates; and other substantive issues, including an update by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and issues related to the promotion and protection of human rights.
VESA HIMANEN (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in a general comment after adoption, welcomed the programme of work for 2006-2007, which the Council had just adopted by consensus. The proposed framework had struck the necessary balance between the need for predictability in the Council’s work and the flexibility needed if they were to be able to address emerging situations. The European Union continued to attach the greatest importance to the independence of the work of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and her ability to interact with the Council. The present outcome represented a fair compromise, and for that reason the European Union was prepared to accept it.
Resolution on Human Rights Situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories
In a resolution (A/HRC/1/L.15) entitled “human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories”, adopted after a vote with in 29 favour, 12 against, and five abstentions (Cameroon, Ghana, Guatemala, Nigeria, Republic of Korea), as orally amended, the Human Rights Council requests the relevant Special Rapporteurs to report to the next session of the Council on the Israeli human rights violations in occupied Palestine; and decides to undertake substantive consideration of the human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories at the next session and to incorporate this issue in its following sessions.
The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri-Lanka, Tunisia, Uruguay, Zambia.
Against: Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom,
Abstention: Cameroon, Ghana, Guatemala, Nigeria, Republic of Korea,
SAMIR LABIDI (Tunisia), speaking on behalf of the Group of Arab States in a general statement, said the Arab Group had attempted to submit a text of compromise, prepared by the Group and the members of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) and supported by other delegations. As a result of occupation, the human rights situation of Palestinians had been deteriorating and the Council should express its concern by adopting L. 15.
ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said that it was unfortunate that certain countries were trying to hijack the Council for their own political purposes. The text that was to be considered was one-sided and contrary to the spirit of General Assembly resolution 60/251. The Council should not consider this proposal if it did not wish to follow the steps of the discredited Commission and participate in Israel-bashing and anti-Zionist propaganda. That a terrorist group had taken power of the Palestinian Authority was a basic fact. That a ruthless terrorist group had taken its own people hostage was only too evident, let alone the taking of Israeli hostages, one of whom had already been killed. It was hiding behind its own citizens, using them as a shield of war, which was the greatest crime.
All of those were undisputed facts, Israel said, but in this hall there were delegations that would like the Council to believe that there were no suicide bombers in Israeli streets killing innocent civilians, and that by accumulating wholesale resolutions they would alleviate the hardship of the Palestinians, and that in this human tragedy there was only one side that had the monopoly on being a victim. Voting in favour of the current draft resolution would mean a return to old and sterile habits and that there was no new and fresh beginning.
MOHAMMAD ABU-KOASH (Palestine), speaking as a concerned country, said listening to the learned Representative of Israel, one would think that it was Palestine that had occupied Israel. It was Israel which had instituted terrorism in the Middle East and in Palestine. Those that claimed they were victims were inflicting endless pain on the Palestinian people. The United States of America, the supporter of Israel, would be celebrating independence on the 4th of July. Palestine also wished to be free and independent. Israel said it was operating in self-defence. Was self-defence invading other people’s borders, to use shells against civilians, to kill innocent people on the beach, he asked?
Half of the Palestinian Government had been abducted by the Israeli occupation authorities, handcuffed and paraded to humiliate them. Sixty Palestinian personalities, including elected members of the Parliament, had been abducted by the Israeli military occupation. The President of Palestine had been put in effect under house arrest, and could not move from Gaza to the West Bank. This was the civilised behaviour of Israel. The Representative of Israel represented a fascist regime that was being tolerated due to the support of superpowers. The Palestinian people suffered from not only the occupation, but from its repercussions, including the lack of water, electricity, medicine, and salaries. The Israeli regime was very nasty, and this was the least way of describing it. All should show that human rights violations were not supported by anybody, even if it was by Israel.
BASHAR JA'AFARI (Syria), speaking as a concerned country, said that it seemed to the Israeli delegation that the human rights violations were mere propaganda and that the world was blind on what was going on in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories. The delegate of Israel was pretending that no human rights violations were taking place. The elected members of parliament and members of the Palestinian Government had been abducted and taken hostage by the occupying power – Israel. While the United Nations had already eliminated colonialism, the only remaining colonialism was the kind that was practiced by Israel. He asked the Israeli delegation what the Israeli fighter jets were doing over the skies of Palestine and Syria yesterday. The number of children killed by Israeli shelling and Israeli snipers had grown. Were the children soldiers? He called on the Council to adopt the draft resolution and end the Israeli atrocities.
GEBRAN SOUFAN (Lebanon), speaking as a concerned country, said consensus should reflect the shared will as the work of the Council began. Lebanon welcomed the establishment of a new United Nations human rights body in order to restore hope and renew working methods, and that was why it had deliberately wanted to abide by dialogue and consensual approaches as part of a new vision. The many attempts to come up with a consensus text had failed, and there was still disagreement on the amount of attention that the Council should pay to human rights violations in Palestine and the other occupied Arab territories.
The chronic problems originating from the occupation could not be ignored. Like the incubation of a disease, the seriousness of the occupation could only be felt afterwards. Lebanon would continue to speak of Israeli violations of human rights, along with its Arab brothers. All the diplomatic cosmetics in the world were required to change the face of an occupying country. All countries that had a concern for human rights should vote for the resolution.
VESA HIMANEN. (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the European Union followed the situation in the occupied Arab territories very, very closely and was particularly alarmed by the escalating violence there over the past few days. The European Union urged all parties to use utmost restraint and to fulfil their responsibility to protect human lives.
The objective in creating the Human Rights Council had been to build an effective instrument to promote and protect the human rights of all. The Human Rights Council should offer the ability to provide that protection in a spirit of cooperation and dialogue. In that regard, the European Union was of the view that the Presidential statement should have addressed all the five issues that had been identified as urgent human rights matters together, including the situation in Sudan and the Abuja Peace Agreement. The European Union participated in the debate and subsequent consultations in a genuine desire to find consensus on all those issues. At this critical juncture in the peace process in Darfur, it would have been an important signal from the Human Rights Council to address the Abuja Peace Agreement and call for peace in Darfur. The European Union regretted therefore that it was not possible to agree on a comprehensive Council statement.
CARLA RODRIGUEZ MANCIA (Guatemala), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Guatemala fought any form of human rights violations. The UN Secretary-General had been doing all he could to resolve the situation in the Middle East. The conflict between Israel and Palestine could be resolved with a two-State formula, which had been advocated by the world community.
PAUL MEYER (Canada), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the Council had been called upon to use enhanced cooperation and dialogue to bring about improvements in the implementation of human rights, and the Council should adhere to this challenge, and should be able to deal with complicated issues through a more constructive and productive approach. For this reason, Canada was disappointed to see this draft decision before the Council. Concrete proposals for further follow-up had been made, and it was hoped that the discussion would be reflected in a consensus-based Council statement. It was most unfortunate that the one-sided draft resolution was introduced rather than striving for agreement on a consensus statement. Canada was disappointed with the procedure through which the issue had been introduced, and did not accept the singling out of one specific situation by the Council, and would therefore vote against the draft resolution.
NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the European Union would have liked to have raised some issues on the content of the present text, in particular with regard to the frequency with which issues were allowed to be addressed by the Council. The European Union would not consider amendments to the text, however. For that reason, the United Kingdom was not able to support the present text.
BLAISE GODET (Switzerland), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said the delegation of Switzerland had voted against the resolution. He regretted that compromise was not possible on the resolution. Through its negative vote, Switzerland was expressing its unhappiness of the adoption of such a resolution in the Council and the procedure followed. Switzerland was against the dangerous escalation of the conflict in the region and was concerned about the human rights violations.
SHIGERU ENDO (Japan), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Japan was concerned about the human rights and humanitarian situation in the Middle East, and for that reason had been providing assistance to the people there. The deterioration of the situation could negatively affect future efforts for peace. Both sides should exercise maximum self-restraint. As this was the first session of the Council, it would have been better to take a consensus approach, and Japan had therefore voted against the resolution.
RICARDO GONZALEZ (Uruguay), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Uruguay had voted for the draft resolution for two reasons: first, because Uruguay was of the view that the resolution was in line with the gravity of the situation in that region; and, second, because the voting procedure was imposed on the will of those who would have preferred a different one. Uruguay hoped that the future work of the Council did not continue in this manner and that it would show greater cooperation.
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that the international community should encourage the parties to the conflict to go back to the negotiating table. Argentina had been following the situation closely and was collaborating with the Quartet in its effort to bring peace to the region.
In a resolution (A/HRC/1/L.16) entitled “incitement to racial and religious hatred and the promotion of tolerance”, adopted by a vote of 33 in favour, 12 against, and one abstention (Republic of Korea), the Council on Human Rights decides to request the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance as well as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the next session on this phenomenon, in particular its implications for article 20, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The result of the vote was follows:
For: Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uruguay, Zambia,
Against: Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom,
Abstention: Republic of Korea.
PAUL MEYER (Canada), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Canada was acutely aware that religious intolerance was a matter of great concern in all areas of the world. Canada agreed with the High Commissioner that the use of harmful stereotypes and the perpetuation of myths that demonized or insulted deep-rooted religious beliefs and a profound sense of identity should be denounced.
Canada had difficulty, however, with calls for the protection of religions themselves, rather than the promotion and protection of the rights of the adherents of religions, including persons belonging to religious minorities. It was individuals who had rights, not religions, and hence references to “defamation of religion” on the part of the Human Rights Council were problematic for Canada. In addition, Canada had fully endorsed the proposal to have a panel discussion at the September session on the question of religious intolerance, and that idea was to have been included, among others, in a consensus-based document in the form of a Council statement. Canada was therefore disappointed with the procedure through which this issue had been introduced, which jeopardized the solidarity of the Council as it was just getting under way. For those reasons, Canada would vote against the draft decision.
VESA HIMANEN (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that this was a very important issue that the Council should consider with great attention, and this was why the European Union had problems with the draft, both for reasons of procedure and substance. Constructive and genuine dialogue, based on mutual respect and understanding, was the best way to address the issue. The European Union had actively participated in consultations, and would have liked some changes in the text. At this stage, however, it would not present amendments. Promoting respect for all religions and beliefs was best done in a comprehensive manner, reaffirming protection of all human rights. The focus on defamation of religions implied promotion of religion as an institution, and was negative with regards to the freedom of conscience, thought and belief. The European Union was and would continue to be ready to engage on this matter in order to enter into dialogue, and would continue to promote the dialogue. However, for these reasons, the European Union was unable to support the text, and would vote against it.
For use of information media; not an official record
HR/HRD/06/28E